PQED reader Gail sent us an article about this and wonders
whether or not the firing is moral. It’s a very good question. Before we answer
it, though, we have to ask, what exactly is he being fired for, the joke or
telling the joke in front of one of its victims? (I think the term ‘victim’ is
too narrowly defined if we don’t consider someone who lost his father a victim
as well.) If the professor is being fired for just telling the joke, this question
becomes one about free speech in general. If it’s about telling the joke in
front of a victim, he may be let go because he created a hostile educational
environment for the student.

In this case our moral consideration hangs on the consequences of the act, not the
intention. One could certainly ask about Sullivan’s motivations, but unless he was
intentionally trying to hurt the student (and there is no evidence to suggest
he was), his intention was just to be funny. We don’t know if anyone laughed
but we have all made jokes that came out flat. No one deserves to be fired for that.

Let’s pretend that there were no victims in the room. Should
Sullivan be fired then? This would be a hard case to make. People make bad and
offensive jokes all the time. In most circumstances, they get sensitivity
training. If there is a pattern of jokes, then people get fired, but not after a single incident. In opposition, though, one might suggest that teachers have to be role models
and offensive jokes set the wrong tone for the class. But this hangs on
what someone finds offensive. I have students who are offended because they are
required to be open-minded about the morality of gay marriage. Teachers can’t
be held to a zero-tolerance standard of offensiveness. If they are, anyone who is at all
offended by anything can get them fired. There has to be some “reasonable” standard
of offense that applies and if there is, the unreasonable emotions will just
have to be ignored.

Return now to the actual situation, the one in which a victim
is actually in the room. This makes the consequences of the joke worse, but it
doesn’t make the joke itself worse. So, if we can’t fire the teacher for making
the joke in the first place, we can’t fire him now. We can only fire him for
creating, as suggested already, a hostile environment for the student.

This is a real concern for the student. But how do we
separate the hostility faced by the Aurora victim from the person who is politically or theologically offended, like the student offended by the gay
marriage discussion? I don’t know how to answer this. One might suggest that
the student who lost his father has emotions that are raw and recent,
but this isn’t fair to the true religious believer. Many very religious people suggest
that their reaction to sin is as just as intimate and intense as they can imagine. Unless
they are lying – and I’m not in a position to say whether they are or not –
then the two cases are equal. There is no difference between offending the
victim and the “morally upright.”

The final justification for firing the teacher is that the
joke is “personal.” It singles out the student and directs the offense
specifically at them, the way a racist joke might harm a single black student
or a sexist comment isolates women in the class. This is the most serious
charge, although the religious person might try to claim the same of their own experience. In a
diverse classroom, making jokes out of a certain categories of people is cause for dismissal.
But being the victim of a crime is not a protected class because there is no
history of oppression based on this kind of victimization. So, unless we reserve the restrictions on speech for the
people who have been officially recognized as having been denied justice, we are at the same
point again. The victim of the Aurora shooting is no different than anyone
else.

I hope this doesn't come out callous, I don't mean it to, but in the grand scheme of things, a joke is pretty mild compared to the pain one feels when losing a parent to violence. I write this because
of something my wife said to me once. We have friends who were going through a
horrific tragedy and I was leaving them food on their porch; I knew they didn’t
want to have to talk to anyone. They saw me on the porch dropping the food off
and I waved, but then I worried that my presence offended them. My wife told me not to worry explaining (pardon the language) that “given what they’re going
through, you’d probably have to take a shit on their front lawn before they
even noticed.” Harm is relative.

The student in class did notice, of course. He left the room.
But the joke was a trigger, not a
cause, and what upset him was not the crack but the event. So, it seems to me
that there is no case to fire the teacher, although, as always, I could be
missing a key point.

One final comment: when the teacher was told what happened, “he
made a ‘quick and remorseful admission’ of guilt, and a ‘personal apology immediately
following the incident.’” There is no evidence to suggest these were not
heartfelt. Assuming they are, shouldn’t they count for something?

1 comment:

I live in Ironton ohio where my son,history teacher was teaching on the holocist.He asked the students if any of them know any racial jokes they said no.My son is,a black child whom is,very far skin.The teacher said I do what is,the difference between a black man and a,pizza the students said we don't know the teacher said a pizza can feed a family.Do you think this teacher should be fired

Subscribe

Welcome to PQED

The is a blog written by Jack Russell Weinstein, the Director of the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life, the host of Why? Philosophical Discussions About Everyday Life, and a Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Dakota. It is dedicated to the exploration of philosophy. Everyone can join in regardless of their expertise or credentials. Be thoughtful and respectful, courageous and interesting, and post your comments to converse with the world. And please, enjoy yourself.

This blog is a project of IPPL. However, unless otherwise stated, these are Jack's opinions, ideas, and explorations, no one else's, including IPPL's, Why? Radio's, Prairie Public radio's, or The University of North Dakota's.)

Search PQED

Like us on Facebook:

Ask PQED a question; get an answer on the blog!

Silly or serious, send us a question and we'll make philosophy out of it. Click on the picture or write to ask@pqed.org

Call PQED (or Why ? Radio)

Donate to PQED, WHY? Radio, and The Institute for Philosophy in Public Life

PQED is the blog for WHY? Radio

Listen live or via podcast. Click on the image to visit whyradioshow.org

About

The Institute for Philosophy in Public Life is a non-profit organization funded by The University of North Dakota College of Arts & Sciences and Office of Research and Economic Development. To donate to IPPL, please write us at ippl@und.edu.

This site is maintained by Jack Russell Weinstein, Director of the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life. Please direct all queries to ippl@und.edu